Arnold Snyder is a former mail carrier that worked for the post office fortwenty-three years. During that time Snyder passed himself off as "anexpert on casino systems" although his highest education degree is a "highschool diploma" and he never played Blackjack professionally, nor evenattempted to play more than a $1 or $2 minimum limit table in his entirelife! While Arnold Snyder (Real Name Thomas Hoover, last known addresses1000 Sunny Hills Ave, Oakland, CA 94610) was working as a $30,000 per yearletter carrier, he was busy using the U.S. mails to send out fraudulentsystem representations to any sucker stupid enough to purchase a book or asystem from his con man operations in Oakland California. Snyderpublishes his con man systems and a hysterically fraudulent and clumsynewsletter under the guise of RGE Publications also found in OaklandCalifornia. Based upon his many years of fraudulent mailings andrepresentations, and the fact that very few individuals were knowledgeableenough or would take the time and spend the money to challenge his con manclaims) Snyder prospered. Today, Snyder probably sells more con man snakeoil losing systems on behalf of the casinos than any other con man in hisfield.

Meanwhile, Snyder (Hoover) while fraudulently claiming that his worthlesssystems could actually beat a real world casino, was also busy secretlyworking for the casinos! Snyder's secret casino connections surfaced whenhe showed up in a recent lawsuit to testify for the TropWorld Casinoagainst a card counter that had purchased some of Snyder's books andsystems. Of course Snyder's side lost. Apparently the jury recognizedcon men for what they were). The name of the now famous case is "Campionev. Adamar," and the jury awarded Campione 1.5 million, which they lateroverturned, but then the Campione estate settled for a "top secret" cashamount paid by the casinos to stop the case from being retried.

Yet the most interesting aspects of the operations of these two con menare their unabashed admittances of their con man operations! During theaforesaid Capione v. Adamar case in which both Snyder (real name ThomasHoover) and Wong (real name John Ferguson) testified for their secretcasino employer, both were required to provide sworn testimony in respectto their self acclaimed "expertise" in respect to casino games. Some oftheir answers to specific questions are quite revealing in respect to theircon man operations. As an example when Lawyer Daily asked Snyder whethercard counters can win, this was his now infamous reply: (RememberSnyder -Hoover was "under an oath.")

Lawyer Daily Question: "How much advantage can a player obtain by usingone of these systems you sell?"

Snyder's Reply:...."He could be at a disadvantage, very likely would be.I do not believe card counters can beat the game of blackjack despite thefact that they might be using valid systems."

Lawyer Daily continues: "And if somebody read your book and mastered theplay set forth in that book, could they, would they have a long rangeadvantage?

Snyder Sworn Reply: "Probably not."

Daily: "Why not?"

Snyder Sworn Reply: "Obtaining an advantage using card counting in todays game is difficult or impossible."

So much for the books and software Snyder sells, and hispreposterous claims that you can win "big money" from real world casinos ifyou purchase his books and software. Snyder/Solinas (Hoover) is clearlylying and conning his clients. He says "under oath" that card counterscannot win even if they are using one of his systems, and that in "realworld" casino conditions the casinos have the right to alter the game insuch a manner as to completely destroy card counting. Yet is Snyderproviding such "disclaimers" to the suckers that are stupid enough topurchase his books, software, or join his "pay for a con" chat room inwhich he provides snake oil testimonials for all of his losing systems?Not on your life!

ANTHONY CURTIS (A.K.A. KURT FLOWERS -A.K.A. MARTIN STRONG)

One of Snyder's best buddies is another con man that uses the alias"Anthony Curtis" (Real name Kurt Flowers or Martin Strong) also attemptedto claim that "casinos pay out more in comps than they take in." Moreover,under oath Kurt said: "So I played craps professionally, I played rouletteprofessionally, I played Baccarat professionally, ..." Flower's actuallyclaimed that he could "play these NEGATIVE EXPECTATION games with apositive expectation." Of course the known mathematical world disagreeswith his nonsensical and preposterous claims. Even the dumbest casinoplayers already knows that you cannot "turn a negative expectation gameinto a positive" one. Moreover, Flowers claimed he had an advantage in"tournaments" which is another lie, and that he made money playing them.The late Professor Peter Griffin, who played with Flowers in tournamentseven contradicted Flower's wild claims.

Anthony Curtis's (real name Kurt Flowers) claims are so egregious andpreposterous that Kurt Flowers (A.K.A. Anthony Curtis) really needs aspecial mention here - especially since he showed up with Snyder to testifyfor the casinos and lied and lied and lied during his sworn depositions.We have detected so many lies this con man has spewed even under oath thathe indeed deserves a "special mention" for the candidacy of "con man of theyear." We must forget the fact this Kurt Flowers con man is a dwarf, andis clearly a pathetic sight. Even discounting his depressing physicaldisabilities no doubt Kurt fits right in with the "Snyder and Wong" con mancircuses of freaks.

STANFORD WONG, A.K.A. "JOHN FERGUSON"

Stanford Wong (real name John Ferguson, last known addresses: 791 IvanhoeAve, No 34, La Jolla, CA 92037) not only spews the same lies and con manoperations as Arnold Snyder, Wong goes a step further and attempts to selland represent Horse Racing, Keno and similar systems as "winning" systems.Yet when Wong was pressed "under oath" to explain how he can develop suchsystems (while the rest of the mathematical world disagrees with his"claims") this is Wong's sworn reply: Wong made the following statementsunder oath when Wong was working for the casinos and testifying against acard counter.

Wong: "I was going to say that's a difficult one, because that's not whatI'm looking for, for validity. I would say after I have got something thatlooks like it should work in theory, I have to be able to go out and do itmyself, or friends of mine have to go out and do it in order for me to say,yes, it's good enough."

Wong has just stated that he is NOT looking for validity!You must understand that ANYONE can "conjure up" a so-called "winningsystem" using the means Ferguson is using to develop his systems. Any foolcan use "curve fitting" or "hindsight pattern recognition" to developso-called winning systems. Unfortunately for the suckers that are foolishenough to purchase Wong's systems and software, the rest of themathematical world knows that such systems "cannot possibly repeat orduplicate their past performances!" Consequently, Wong is clearly conningthe public with his non-valid "curve fitted" systems. Also listen to whatWong (Ferguson) says under oath about his "system claims" in respect tothem actually winning money for players:

Wong said under oath: "I would like to give that a no answer, because Itry to be honest in my advertising, but the truth is, when you make claimsof what you would like, you know, when you want your customer to spend somemoney with you, there is a way to make money, that is a thing that sells.I tried selling basic strategy, saying there is a way to lose slower, and Ifound there is no market for that."

I bet you Wong & Snyder "clients" actually believed thatSnyder and Wong and Curtis and the rest of the con men were really tellingyou that if you purchased systems or software from them you would win moneyin a real world casino. Well, when these con men are pressed to back uptheir claims in a court of law, under oath, they really start to spinanother tale. So much for "truth in advertising" especially if it iscoming from Stanford Wong.

Wong and Snyder have both stated under oath that you will not and cannotbeat real world casinos. Despite their hype advertisements and con manfake testimonials they plant on these and their proprietary newsgroups dayand night, the facts are, under oath, these con men are telling you thesame thing I have been telling you for years:

Card counting cannot beat a real world casino! None of the systems thesecon men sell will make you profit against real world casinos.

Alex, I'm curious to know where you cited this material from. It did not sound like your style of writing. I may be wrong, but if not, then I'd like to know the source(s). Was this from a website? Because I know everything I read on the net is always true.

Alex, I'm curious to know where you cited this material from. It did not sound like your style of writing. I may be wrong, but if not, then I'd like to know the source(s). Was this from a website? Because I know everything I read on the net is always true.

John

The material is part of NJ court system. Search for famous case "Campione vs. Adamar" where Campione won his case against casino. In that case Wong, Snyder Curtis and Max Rubin testified for casinos. They been hired by casino to testify against Campione.

Please pay attention to what all of those cons have to say about systems based on card counting. They say that no one can gain an edge using card counting, yet they all sell books related to card counting.

"Please pay attention to what all of those cons have to say about systems based on card counting. They say that no one can gain an edge using card counting, yet they all sell books related to card counting."

HUH? I've read quite about bit about card counting and have USED it myself actually with good results. Much better results than any betting progression I've ever seen. Honestly I don't think you really know jack shit about gambling let along blackjack itself. In point of fact you can gain a long term SMALL edge over black jack. The authors themselves state that you can gain an edge in blackjack but they do say that sooner or later your going to have a losing session.

Because all card counting does is determine the amount of high and low cards that remain in the shoe and your odds of getting a blackjack and strong hands and the dealers bust frequency.

Sorry but I've read your posts and I have come to the conclusion that you are just one of those frusterated losers who try and make high claims about how much millions they've won, and how other more valid players are losers.

"Please pay attention to what all of those cons have to say about systems based on card counting. They say that no one can gain an edge using card counting, yet they all sell books related to card counting."

HUH? I've read quite about bit about card counting and have USED it myself actually with good results. Much better results than any betting progression I've ever seen. Honestly I don't think you really know jack shit about gambling let along blackjack itself. In point of fact you can gain a long term SMALL edge over black jack. The authors themselves state that you can gain an edge in blackjack but they do say that sooner or later your going to have a losing session.

Because all card counting does is determine the amount of high and low cards that remain in the shoe and your odds of getting a blackjack and strong hands and the dealers bust frequency.

Sorry but I've read your posts and I have come to the conclusion that you are just one of those frusterated losers who try and make high claims about how much millions they've won, and how other more valid players are losers.

Keep counting, and keep betting by count, .., but don't forget this:I play BJ in Vegas since I was not even 18 years old. I play BJ with Lawrence Revere and the big guys. I played BJ professionally for many years when the game of BJ was real. I played BJ with Kenny Uston when NJ just got its first casino running.

Don't lecture me what Bj is all about. I know all the tricks of the trade. But you obviously are still "green" and novice in this field. So, I forgive you! - You still have alot to learn.

Anyway, read some real and solid facts. Read and make your own conclusions about what a card counter is against.

Security Laws require the casinos to reveal information to their shareholders in respect to potential losses in income. So when Arnold Snyder and Stanford Wong started conducting seminars and profess their systems could beat the casinos out of "big money" and all could "make a living" playing Blackjack, letters from shareholders were fired off to the casinos. Someone was obviously lying. Either Snyder and Wong and the rest of the system hucksters were lying, or the casinos were hiding their losses and potential losses from their shareholders. Note that public companies like most of the casinos are required by law to disclose anything that could affect their share prices. So Snyder and Wong and others were running around making statements, and they actually held their seminars inside casinos, that players can "make big money" off the casinos, and "make a living" off the casinos.

Yet the casinos were not reporting this revelation in their 10-K's or elsewhere. Again, no doubt someone was lying about all this, and it was either the system hucksters or the casinos. After a very extensive review of procedures, and countermeasures, the casinos concluded in court documents, in writing, that "CARD COUNTERS CANNOT ACHIEVE A PROFIT AGAINST CASINO BJ." The security commision investigated and agreed with casinos that card counters cannot beat the game of BJ as is setup today. Card counting was proficient agains Single Deck, S17, DAS, RSA and 99% penetration like in the late 60's.

But it cannot beat the game of BJ in today's environment that exists out there. Keep dreaming if that makes you feel good. Keep dreaming about the golded age of card counting if you want. Keep dreaming, but be prepared and enjoy losing your money if you bet by count. Just keep counting, Kid! - Your count is fine, but is not there anymore.

Oh, by the way, What are you counting anyway in 6D with 1.5 decks cut out or 2D with 50% pen? ..,What are you counting? - Please tell us

i've never read any books by stanford wong or arnold snyder... is there any shred of truth in what AlexD30 said? i'm certain that there are card counters who win in the long haul (i.e. the MIT team) but i've talked to pit bosses and dealers who've told me that they've never met anyone who has ever won consistently... and whenever someone wins big, the winner always gives it back and more the next time. are there any existing blackjack authors who still play for a living?

I have personally met Arnold and talked with him face to face, over the phone, and via email. He is exactly what he claims to be, and if you investigate the "world of advantage play" on the internet, you will find he is one of the most respected authorities on 21 in the world. He is commonly referred to from an old handle as "the bishop" and I can tell you first hand, he knows card counting, shuffle-tracking, and several other forms of advantage play. Saying he is anything but a seasoned AP (and he _has_ played professionally, _has_ played on and organized card-counting teams, etc. His "blackbelt in blackjack" is a must-read for any serious student of the game.

Stanford is similar. I have never met him, but his reputation and books are clearly well-respected, many of us use the hi-lo system and playing indices he published in his "professional blackjack" book, another must-read, particularly if you are going to be a hi-lo player (as I am).

Max I have never met, but have seen him often on TV in the world series of blackjack series. He is also well-respected in the field...

There are advantage players all over the world that know one or more of the above personally, and would vouch for them unconditionally...

hopefully that is enough said... old posts by Alex are a waste of time. He went on and on here for months about counting won't work, but my progression will. When challenged repeatedly, he finally "magically" became a card counting expert, giving advice as if he had been counting for years. Take it all with a bucket of salt if written by him. There are occasional good points he makes. But then there are the lemons like this old post you drug up above...